To think that the Cambridge Dictionary doesn’t know what a woman is?

[HoofWankingSpangleCunt]

Cambridge Dictionary changes definition of woman

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d0d69d58-7b0c-11ed-bcd8-855e06175970?shareToken=145378cb575d0ff12d97278f7355f1c8

This has fucked me right off this morning.

Because other worldviews exist?

So in my worldview I think women have unique needs and deserve protection from discrimination on the basis they are adult human females.

In the other world view this is not possible.

Why, minimarshmellow, is it acceptable to say that rights and needs based on sex should be impossible? That being female is of so little consequence those that are female do not need anything to set themselves apart from male humans? Not even their own definition and name?

So with the updated definition of woman, we can now say that a woman can be either literally a woman, or someone who identifies as a woman, the latter being not literally a woman, but also, simultaneously, literally a woman.

Is that you, Sir Humphrey?

Or a cat according to the old definition or a cat according to the new definition

It is, indeed, the crux of the issue.

Imagine that transgender males came up with a completely different word to describe "biologically male people who identify as [whatever it is they are identifying with]", for example, "fawnoculous". (I used a random word generator to come up with this word.)

Everyone would go, "Great, you do you. Live your best life being a fawnoculous, we support you. We don't actually organise society according to whether you are a fawnoculous or not, but I guess if you think you want separate spaces and sporting categories just for people who identify as a fawnoculous then you're welcome to create them. Either that or you can just happily be a fawnoculous whilst using men's toilets and competing in men's sporting categories with the other men, right?"

They have to use the word "woman", because they have to pretend that their identity has something to do with us, that we have some shared characteristic which makes it logical for us to use the same single sex spaces and compete in the same sports.

We don't, and it isn't.

All we have in common is this highly disputed word with two complete contradictory meanings, one of which has been in constant use for over a thousand years and the other of which was invented by them about five minutes ago.

Some dogs identity as cats. They can be dogs that call themselves cats.

But they aren't cats. Cats are felines.

yes, in even worse ways. WDI is a good place to start, they do weekly webinars amongst others from all different countries

That's definition 1. Definition 2 is or dogs that call themselves cat.

That's only because you can't see the absurdity until it's used on literally any other thing. A male person can be a female person, but a shark can't be a cat? Why?

You said that it could be, if only enough people start using the word that way. So go on. How many people need to say that was a picture of a kitten before you abandon the evidence of your eyes and learned knowledge and accept that it's a kitten?

They have to use the word "woman", because they have to pretend that their identity has something to do with us, that we have some shared characteristic which makes it logical for us to use the same single sex spaces and compete in the same sports.

We don't, and it isn't.

All we have in common is this highly disputed word with two complete contradictory meanings, one of which has been in constant use for over a thousand years and the other of which was invented by them about five minutes ago.

Perfectly put. The two meanings are mutually exclusive. There is no rationale ever given for why some males should be considered women other than "because they think they are".

That's definition 1. Definition 2 is or dogs that call themselves cat.

But a cat is by definition no 1. So a cat is feline. Dogs who call themselves cats are dogs (canines) pretending to be cats. They aren't actually cats because they need to be feline.

Cats don't have any kind of self-identity so the analogy doesn't work. Not that it ever did.

Most humans don't have any kind of gender identity either.

I think in my dictionary:

Being a slave can be the second definition for "freedom"

Fighting against another nation can be the second definition for "peace".

And I think on the world map I'll just tweak the name of Eurasia.

Makes me so angry.

a) Answer the questions.

b) How do you know cats don't have an identity?

c) I don't have a gender identity. Am I not human?

Cats don't have any kind of self-identity so the analogy doesn't work. Not that it ever did.

It works fine, no nebulous "self-identity" needed, because it's about how other people refer to them. Leaving aside the dictionary, you are allergic to cats, but fine with dogs. Someone has decided that cats are a type of dog. You are staying in their guest house and email them about your cat hair allergy, and they say "oh don't worry, I just have a dog". However it's a cat, and the experience isn't a good one for you.

It's important to have a shared understanding of what words mean. This is a general example of that importance, not a direct analogy.

Of course you can use words however you want - but using them in a way which is not their correct definition is simply inaccurate.

I could go around calling the road a tree, calling my house a cake or calling cars penguins - it doesn't legitimise my use of the word - I can't suddenly claim that my car is 100% carbon-free by calling it a penguin.

So, call whatever you wish by whatever name you like, you will be in your own world of fantasy and make believe (and if you are uncertain - look those words up in the dictionary, they haven't been redefined yet!)

The issue in discussion here is that the bizarre choice by the Cambridge Dictionary pretends to legitimise a fantasy and make-believe world view and clearly that is not appropriate.

Fundamentally at the root of this is:

Fact
Man = biological sex = male at birth and thereafter
Woman = biological sex = female at birth and thereafter

Anyone who has been through surgery to change their appearance, or who feels more female / male etc. still doesn't change that basic biological fact, so they still remain a man or woman as they were born.

If they want a new word to describe how they now feel, then (as suggested above) they can invent a new word - but they don't get to use an existing word and redefine it in the process.

Cats don't have any kind of self-identity so the analogy doesn't work.

Don't they? How do you know?
(And that's leaving aside the self identified cats who look like humans, as observed in the wild by various teachers)

Anyone who has been through surgery to change their appearance, or who feels more female / male etc. still doesn't change that basic biological fact, so they still remain a man or woman as they were born.

The dictionary doesn't seem to challenge that, which is part of the issue. At what point are adult human males considered the same as adult human females? Are they both men and women simultaneously?

Tbh I'm so confused about all this now I dont know what I think. I'm not clever enough to understand any of the arguments either way any more.

Dictionaries shouldn't really be confusing, woolly or vague, should they? It's not you, panko.

I thought I had it sussed in my head but now no. Now my mind is full of fluff and I don't know what is real any more or what gender even is.

Why not a trans cat? An understood term that already exists and means what you're trying to describe. cis just means standard right? So if I ask for cat and get a "cat" I'd still need to specify that actually I want a proper one. It just seems a bit mealy mouthed and confusing.

If there's still the need for clarification then it's not really any form of equal standing at all is it?

a) right, no matter how many times you showed me a photo of a shark and told me it was a kitten, I would not start believing it was a kitten. That's because we never use the word kitten to refer to a shark, in our universe. Are you telling me the shark in the picture self-identifies as a kitten?
b) they don't have complex thoughts. If cats do have complex thoughts in fact, and a self identity, they can't express that to us so we can't make assumptions about it and so we don't talk about the self identity of cats.
c) non-humans don't have gender identities...that doesn't follow that a person without a gender identity is not a human...

Even if cats don't have a self identity (and what is a female identity?), we can still identify and define them as cats and not dogs, sharks or USB ports. That's the point.